Obviously, the term heritage American is not 'problematic' in the sense that irritating leftists might use the term. But it is in this sense. For one thing, distinctions between heritage whites and non heritage whites are, for contemporary purposes, in the mind if they were ever real distinctions at all. Secondly, it opens the door, even if erroneously, to legitimize the historical legacy of tepees and scholars as Americans which was antithetical to anyone's intentions and needless to say, terrible for the country. I'm descended form a Portuguese merchant sea dog who had seen firsthand the devastating effects of black presence in his home country's colonial territories who fought for the Union to rid America of blacks, headed west to Missouri after the war, and fathered children who became Klansmen. That's not heritage, but it's white and that's what mattered to the founders, hence why they used the term. The founders did not say heritage, they said white, because they wanted good white men, not just ones of a certain strain, or going back to a particular epoch, and certainly not murderous apes or buffalo men. If white isn't an authentic identity, you can tell the founders, who cared a whole lot more about that then who was and wasn't this or that Christian. Fischer, for his part does a good job that showing, counter to what the trad boys would have you believe, that this dour sexual morality they fetishize was hardly ubiquitous as the tidewater virginia colonists were quite sensual and randy. Just my two cents.
we lack too a term for the New America - the land of Somali mayors and 100 language school districts. “Yookay” was a stroke of absolute genius in that regard for Britain, but aside from some desultory attempts to describe the post-65ers - “USians”, “Paper Americans”, etc - no suitable term has arisen
Obviously, the term heritage American is not 'problematic' in the sense that irritating leftists might use the term. But it is in this sense. For one thing, distinctions between heritage whites and non heritage whites are, for contemporary purposes, in the mind if they were ever real distinctions at all. Secondly, it opens the door, even if erroneously, to legitimize the historical legacy of tepees and scholars as Americans which was antithetical to anyone's intentions and needless to say, terrible for the country. I'm descended form a Portuguese merchant sea dog who had seen firsthand the devastating effects of black presence in his home country's colonial territories who fought for the Union to rid America of blacks, headed west to Missouri after the war, and fathered children who became Klansmen. That's not heritage, but it's white and that's what mattered to the founders, hence why they used the term. The founders did not say heritage, they said white, because they wanted good white men, not just ones of a certain strain, or going back to a particular epoch, and certainly not murderous apes or buffalo men. If white isn't an authentic identity, you can tell the founders, who cared a whole lot more about that then who was and wasn't this or that Christian. Fischer, for his part does a good job that showing, counter to what the trad boys would have you believe, that this dour sexual morality they fetishize was hardly ubiquitous as the tidewater virginia colonists were quite sensual and randy. Just my two cents.
Where do Ellis Islanders fit in this schema?
Dago WOP Americans.
Nice try. Since America is an Italian name, You gotta get here first to name it. So, I believe that makes Italians the real heritage Americans.
A Dago-Wop Heritage American here.
we lack too a term for the New America - the land of Somali mayors and 100 language school districts. “Yookay” was a stroke of absolute genius in that regard for Britain, but aside from some desultory attempts to describe the post-65ers - “USians”, “Paper Americans”, etc - no suitable term has arisen
Proud Anglo Saxon here
I’m a first generation Heritage American